|
Why do two thirds of Americans hate Freedom? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by tribu
I wasn't talking about the most recent administration, but rather the congress and people in Washington over my lifetime (roughly 6 presidential terms). Many senators/Congresspeople keep their jobs solely because of name recognition despite the fact that people constantly bitch about their effectiveness or lack thereof. Congressmen become senators, governors become congreesmen and all the while people complain about what they're doing or not doing while casting their vote blindly for their party or some other worthless reason. Some of this is undoubtedly party spew but 1/3rd approval ratings are hardly favorable in any circumstance. |
oh, ok |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Maybe if Bush oppress gay civil rights again his ratings will go back up. :rolleyes: |
um, yep. coz gay rights is the single most important issue in the modern political climate :rolleyes:
i mean seriously, do you have any more to your belief system than just homosexual rights? and if it is indeed your #1 concern, id say your priorities are well skewed. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
actually the states do that. and voters. welcome to America.
when has bush ever oppressed gays other than holding up Clinton-era legislation?:rolleyes: |
In the U.S. you can fire someone from their job anytime, anywhere for being gay, and it is perfectly legal if your looking at federal laws. You can also beat the out of someone, or kill them for being gay and you will never be charged Federally with a hate crime.
Bush has been in office 5 years, it's a little too late to blame Clinton. Also for the first time ever Bush wants to amend the constitution to limit peoples rights. I wonder what Dick Cheneys daughter thinks of that considering shes a lesbian. Obviously, she will never have to worry about spousal health benefits or anything like that, because of all the "Haliburton Money".
The Republican Party bashes gays because bigotry sells. Seriously, wouln't the 50% of married people that end up divorced rather blame gay people than themselves for the state of family values in this country. When do you ever hear anyone say; may'be I should quit drugs, alcohol, beating my kids & wife, get rid of my mistress & stop seeing prostitutes so I can have better family values. As for my comment that bigotry sells - it does. It worked for Adolf Hitler, Barry Goldwater ( didn't want to sign the 1964 Civil Rights Bill ), Slobadan Milosevic, Hamas, & the current president of Iran, and now the Bush Administration. Politicized bigotry has helped all those people gain political power. Even Barry Goldwater, while he did loose the election, that election is why the South is Republican today. In that election all the people in the South that hated blacks left the Democrat party & became Republican. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
when has bush ever oppressed gays other than holding up Clinton-era legislation?:rolleyes: |
Oh I dunno...let's see here...how about this:
When Bush proposed and tried to push a CONSTITUTIONAL ING AMENDMENT TO MAKE GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL in 2004. I think I might be going out on a limb here but something...somewhere...in that legislation tells me that there are some pretty big letters that spell the words "OBVIOUS OPPRESSION". :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shamen DJ's
In the U.S. you can fire someone from their job anytime, anywhere for being gay, and it is perfectly legal if your looking at federal laws. |
what the hell are you talking about? it's taken almost three years but it's in the Senate right now. Congress has been trying to strengthen the 1994 law since 1999. besides, that goes back to my original point about states rights and not to mention is a serious First Amendment debate. | quote: | | You can also beat the out of someone, or kill them for being gay and you will never be charged Federally with a hate crime. |
oh but you'll blame Bush and the Republicans for that till you turn blue in the face and not Congress as a whole for at least trying in '94 and trying to get it right since then.
| quote: | | Bush has been in office 5 years, it's a little too late to blame Clinton. |
i'm not sure if i understand you, but i'm not blaming Clinton for anything. | quote: | | Obviously, she will never have to worry about spousal health benefits or anything like that, because of all the "Haliburton Money". |
gee, i don't know she's a managing executive at Coors (gotta love that) but you probably think that the "Haliburton money" has gotten her everything and she wouldn't be able to function otherwise. to me thats pretty bigotted. give her gay ass some credit, her dad's Dick Cheney for cryin out loud. look start a thread.
| quote: | | In that election all the people in the South that hated blacks left the Democrat party & became Republican. |
whoa! hold it there cowboy. that is so shortsided of the political spectrum as a whole back then. is that the propaganda there feeding you guy's these days? is that why Wallace won back all those states Goldwater won except South Carolina in '68 (the real Republican turnaround)? is that why both houses of Congress stayed overwhelmingly Democratic for two more decades, espescially in the south? c'mon dude. oh yeah and Goldwater was a racist :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Oh I dunno...let's see here...how about this:
When Bush proposed and tried to push a CONSTITUTIONAL ING AMENDMENT TO MAKE GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL in 2004. I think I might be going out on a limb here but something...somewhere...in that legislation tells me that there are some pretty big letters that spell the words "OBVIOUS OPPRESSION". :rolleyes: |
oh man you got me there. well when the states have come around from the four to one majority in defence of marriage, and the words "civil union" have become profane amongst gays maybe there will be another president in office that won't be so oppressive...but by then it won't be issue of morality it will be an issue of semantics. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
um, yep. coz gay rights is the single most important issue in the modern political climate :rolleyes: |
It is an important issue to me. And why should it not be? Can you give me any reasons? Here, I’ll give you some reasons on why it is an important (but not the single most important) issue in the modern political climate:
Rather than focusing time and energy on real legislation and issues, many Republicans are trying to make a set of laws and pushing agendas that oppress gay people and their basic rights. These laws and legislation include:
-restricting marriage to only between a man and a woman.
-outlawing any kind of alternative domestic partnership for gay people.
-making it illegal for gay people to adopt children.
-(specifically) trying to fire a judge in Maryland for ruling gay marriage to be constitutional
-defeating laws that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace
And I’m not just talking about a handful of Republicans who are trying to oppress gay rights. I’m talking about most who hop on the gay-bashing bandwagon too. When representatives of California voted on whether or not to legalize gay marriage, ALL of the republicans voted against it (and the republican Governator vetoed it). When the representatives of Washington voted on a bill to make discrimination against gays and lesbians illegal in the workplace, all BUT ONE of the republicans voted against it.
(Of course this is all based on the premise that gay people should be given equal rights. If you disagree with that, then I cannot logically convince you otherwise.)
And in case you are tired of reading about gay rights and think there’s other important issues to work on, digest this:
The reps of the US can’t make up their minds on gay rights and therefore hinder political progress in other important areas of the modern political climate. Republicans are trying to write discrimination into law and Democrats are trying to pull them back. Basically, the divided representatives of the US are having a pendulum party with gay issues. If you should be tired of anything, it should be the fact that severe bias against a minority group is prompting many conservatives to dictate and write hate into legislation in the US. Does this not sound just a bit misguided to you? Or do you still think that I should just read political discussions in this forum and refrain from reminding you of just one more reason why I think the political system I live in is unjust?
| quote: | | i mean seriously, do you have any more to your belief system than just homosexual rights? and if it is indeed your #1 concern, id say your priorities are well skewed. |
Likewise…
I mean seriously, do you want me to annoy you and attack your personal beliefs for the rest of your TA experience for picking apart a civil rights issue that I support but hardly even dove into in this thread? And if it is indeed your #1 concern, I’d say you’re a tunnel-visioned gay-bashing antagonizer.
Nowhere in this thread did I state that I have nothing more to my belief system than just homosexual rights. Did I? No, I didn’t. I made a joke about boosting Bushes ratings. The joke even had truth to it and was completely relevant to the topic. When Bush used the marriage amendment agenda in 2004, it did help boost his support from the far right. So what possessed you to hop off the topic of my little joke and turn it into a general attack about gay rights being my only concern? Bigotry? Being a little narrow-minded? Ran out of your favorite RC cola and having withdrawals?
To enlighten you, here are other political opinions that I think are also very important to me:
-abortion (mostly pro-choice)
-legalizing marijuana (i don’t smoke it, but I’m not opposed to it, and I know it became illegal based off of racism against blacks and hispanics)
-legalizing prostitution (who even made it illegal in the first place?)
-focusing on rehabilitation rather than jailtime for illegal drug users
-developing institutions to focus on teenage social gatherings
-better transportation systems (do you have any idea how much I bitch and complain because there’s no subway system in LA? You’ll think my gay rights rants are a walk in the park compared to this)
-telemarketer abuse (they’ve ruined so many of my nights and I’ve gone to the BBB and FCC with this issue)
-better healthcare (hi, I’m sick and don’t have healthcare. Can I slaughter my savings account so you can profit? Thanks!)
Despite having an array of political beliefs, if you are still sick and tired of my outspoken pro-gay homosexual agenda in TA, then please be so kind as to doing 4 small favors for me:
-GIVE ME MY RIGHT TO MARRY IN MY OWN ING COUNTRY
-GIVE ME MY RIGHT TO ADOPT CHILDREN IN MY OWN ING COUNTRY
-GIVE ME MY RIGHT TO BE GAY WITHOUT BEING FIRED FROM A JOB IN MY OWN ING COUNTRY
-SHUT THE UP UNTIL I HAVE THOSE RIGHTS
Seriously, if I were black and in the 1950s, would you alienate me because about I’m trying to establish my basic rights? I’m sure you would.
Sorry to rant for so long, but I think it was warranted based on your skewed reply. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
what the hell are you talking about? it's taken almost three years but it's in the Senate right now. Congress has been trying to strengthen the 1994 law since 1999. besides, that goes back to my original point about states rights and not to mention is a serious First Amendment debate. |
In 33 states it's still legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation in the workplace (17 states have passed discrimination bans in the workplace). Congress may be trying to strengthen the law, but look at who in congress is trying to strengthen it. I betcha tree-fidy that it's far more Democrats than Republicans.
| quote: | oh but you'll blame Bush and the Republicans for that till you turn blue in the face and not Congress as a whole for at least trying in '94 and trying to get it right since then.
|
I'm not sure if my reply to this quote is on-topic, but I think it is almost entirely the Republican party that is hindering gay rights, and not nearly as much the Democratic party. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
It is an important issue to me. And why should it not be? |
im not saying it shouldnt be important. just that in a world where people are being blown to pieces, tortured, persecuted by govts, or starving to death etc, i dont think gay rights are anywhere near the top of the pile.
| quote: |
Likewise…
I mean seriously, do you want me to annoy you and attack your personal beliefs for the rest of your TA experience for picking apart a civil rights issue that I support but hardly even dove into in this thread? And if it is indeed your #1 concern, I’d say you’re a tunnel-visioned gay-bashing antagonizer. |
no, merely pointing out what i have seen as your focus in this forum on gay rights over (what it seems to me) everything else. and i think that focus would be a bit narrow.
| quote: |
Nowhere in this thread did I state that I have nothing more to my belief system than just homosexual rights. Did I? No, I didn’t. I made a joke about boosting Bushes ratings...So what possessed you to hop off the topic of my little joke and turn it into a general attack about gay rights being my only concern? Bigotry? Being a little narrow-minded? |
dont people that like to perceive themselves as victims or minorities often like to assume just coz someone might not like the way theyre going about things they MUST be bigoted. christ. given most of the posts ive read by you in the PDD revolve around gay rights i was merely asking whether thats the only thing you give a about. and if it was, then id say that was pretty , as there are people in far worse positions than yourself. i wasnt trying to marginalise gay interests at all. and im certainly not bigoted against sexual equality.
| quote: |
To enlighten you, here are other political opinions that I think are also very important to me: |
thanks, that was, after all, what i asked ;) but dont go round filling the cliche by crying bigot just coz someone might disagree with you. i think its funny tho that the US, with all its constitutional freedoms, is behind australia when it comes to things like sexual equality (at least formal, legislative equality). |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
In 33 states it's still legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation in the workplace (17 states have passed discrimination bans in the workplace). Congress may be trying to strengthen the law, but look at who in congress is trying to strengthen it. I betcha tree-fidy that it's far more Democrats than Republicans. |
is this really a problem or is this just old laws on the books that aren't specific enough?
and let me remind you that maximizing states rights and minimizing Federal influence is and has been a Republican core value since the beginning. sometimes people like to spin that to make it look like the sky is falling or that it's a character flaw.
besides that post was about hate crime laws. not firing people
(please don't bring up Bush's bigger government thing. i'm tired)
| quote: | | I'm not sure if my reply to this quote is on-topic, but I think it is almost entirely the Republican party that is hindering gay rights, and not nearly as much the Democratic party. |
again that post was about hate crimes:confused:
anyway, when it comes to the word marriage, you'd be right. the things Bush has said publicly about gay-rights is not encouraging at all? i don't know i'm just asking |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not saying it shouldnt be important. just that in a world where people are being blown to pieces, tortured, persecuted by govts, or starving to death etc, i dont think gay rights are anywhere near the top of the pile.
|
I wasn't saying that I want to get married before we help stavin Marvins in Ethiopia. Can only one topic be discussed at any given time?
The topic of this thread wasn't specified towards what's the most important social issue or how should we help starving children. It was about Bush's ratings. So while you got a point about starvin Marvins, it's not relevant to my original joke in this thread. *whip* Stay on topic. *whip* You're making an argument that never existed.
I never put my gay agenda on top of people being blown to pieces, tortured, persecuted by govts, or starving to death. In fact, I've made a lot of comments regarding people being blown to pieces in this political forum. So don't try to make it sound like I'm some whiny gay guy who disregards other isses by comparing my joke to other unrelated events. I just made a joke. J-O-K-E. I didn't come into this forum demanding that my gay-rights be resolved before all other social issues be resolved. No. I made a joke about Bush. A freakin one line joke.
| quote: | | no, merely pointing out what i have seen as your focus in this forum on gay rights over (what it seems to me) everything else. and i think that focus would be a bit narrow. |
Everyone else does a good job at bashing Bush about his foreign policies and I agree with most of the anti-Bushies on this site. But I don't see anyone mention gay rights, so I bring it up. And it's relevant. What's wrong with adding icing on top of the "I hate Bush" campaign? I think all the topics on the middle East are a bit narrow but I understand it's probably the most pressing issue to you guys. Hence, I don't comment "why do you always talk about the Iraq war? What about marijuana and prostitution and the environment?" So why are you doing that to me?
| quote: | | dont people that like to perceive themselves as victims or minorities often like to assume just coz someone might not like the way theyre going about things they MUST be bigoted. |
Aren't people who point out everytime I make a pro-gay remark straight? And why did you make a hasty generalization by taking my little joke and drawing an illusionary correlation between that and a global behavioral characteristic of mine that is "pro-gay above everything else"? So maybe you're not a bigot, but just have a struggle with understanding logic.
| quote: | | christ. given most of the posts ive read by you in the PDD revolve around gay rights i was merely asking whether thats the only thing you give a about. and if it was, then id say that was pretty , as there are people in far worse positions than yourself. i wasnt trying to marginalise gay interests at all. and im certainly not bigoted against sexual equality. |
Christ, well when someone says this: "i mean seriously, do you have any more to your belief system than just homosexual rights? and if it is indeed your #1 concern, id say your priorities are well skewed," then it sure sounds like I'm being haggled and labeled more than being asked a mere question.
.
.
.
Now let's recap and reflect:
Are there more important subjects than gay rights?
YES
Did I ever make gay rights a priority above all other issues?
NO
Just because there are more important issues than gay rights, should I abandon my posts on gay issues?
NO
Did you take my joke and bring in a bunch of irrelevant pro-gay comments I've made from other threads and build this illusional adecdote that I only focus on gay rights and don't seem to care about other issues that weren't even brought up in this original post?
YES
Should you stop doing that?
The correct answer is YES
| quote: | | but dont go round filling the cliche by crying bigot just coz someone might disagree with you. |
Don't go round filling me out as a self-pitying victim when I bring up an issue you're not interested in.
| quote: | | i think its funny tho that the US, with all its constitutional freedoms, is behind australia when it comes to things like sexual equality (at least formal, legislative equality). |
Agreed. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: |
again that post was about hate crimes:confused: |
My bad. Sorry :(
| quote: |
anyway, when it comes to the word marriage, you'd be right. the things Bush has said publicly about gay-rights is not encouraging at all? i don't know i'm just asking |
No, it's not encouraging. He's no Jerry Falwell, but he hasn't done anything that visibly helps gay people either. |
|
|
|
|
